From owner-freebsd-current Wed Apr 21 11: 6:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from helmholtz.salk.edu (helmholtz.salk.edu [198.202.70.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271861543B for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:06:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bartol@salk.edu) Received: from eccles.salk.edu (eccles [198.202.70.120]) by helmholtz.salk.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA10557; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:03:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Bartol To: Peter Wemm Cc: Matthew Reimer , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files) In-Reply-To: <19990421174502.ECEC61F2A@spinner.netplex.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Peter Wemm wrote: > Matthew Reimer wrote: > > Great work guys! It almost seems that -current is more stable than > > -stable! > > > > Matt > > Funny you should mention it. I've heard this from a number of people over > the last week.. One has even suggested using a particular known-good 4.0 > snapshot in preference to a 3.1-stable for a production system...... > > Cheers, > -Peter And on this note -- is it planned to merge or backport these patches to -stable? We make very heavy use of NFS (udp, 100mb fxp0 fullduplex). We're using FreeBSD-3.1-STABLE as NFS clients to a big Auspex NS7000 NFS file server. We're in production mode in our lab and can't risk running -current on many of our machines so we've decided to run -stable on ALL of them (except perhaps MY machine but don't tell anyone ;-) Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message